Uh, but they have a spare keyboard, mouse, and monitor to hook up to a Raspberry Pi? I think OLAP did it better by offering an all-in-one package that has everything needed built in. OLAP even went so far as to consider houses without electricity by building in a crank to generate power! I still don't get the point of Raspberry Pi.
The Raspberry Pi's creators, the Raspberry Pi Foundation, want to spark children's interest in computer programming and encourage students to apply for computing degrees.
Why not install Python on whatever computer is already around the house? Or Scratch? Or have them write JavaScript in the browsers they already use? I think that would be a more effective way to introduce them to computer programming.
No, a patent on the process would only mean that others would not be able to use the process without getting a license from the owners of the patent. I give people who confuse copyrights, trademarks, and patents and cannot reason about them the same consideration as people who consider LSD and heroin to be similar because they're both illegal drugs. Both groups of people just give their predictable knee-jerk reactions: drugs are bad, IP protections are bad.
If you can't come up with a resaonable estimate yourself, how can you trust the information you get from whatever website Google pulls up? I'm glad that employers are starting to see whether prospective employees can actually think for themselves. It's the same reason I'm glad the SAT has a writing section, and the GRE has a section on analytical reasoning that isn't just solving contrived puzzles.
This is a common misconception. We don't need to change our lifestyles to reduce greenhouse gas emissions signifcantly. We can simply get energy from other sources and improve energy efficiency. Individuals changing their lifestyles won't be nearly as effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions than policies that promote using less fossil fuels and less energy.
To be more precise, both are bad in large quantites. In small quantities mixed with substances that occur naturally with them, such as fiber, they are good for you. Fruits and whole grains are healthy. It's when you process the carbohydrates that they become unhealthy.
"At this stage, the study is showing an association of death rates of the bees with the virus and fungus present," Bilimoria said. "Our contribution to this study confirms association. But even that doesn't prove cause and effect. Not just yet."
The study in this article shows evidence of causation:
"Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health '...have re-created the mysterious Colony Collapse Disorder in several honeybee hives simply by giving them small doses of a popular pesticide, imidacloprid.'"
It's easy to regurgitate that "correlation is not causation", but most people don't seem to quite understand what that sentence means.
Exactly. Then they see which models gave the worst predictions and throw them out. That's how models get better over time. This is precisely how science works. You understand!
Not to mention that you would then need to mentally rotate the image to determine which way you are going and which way you would need to turn. It would be worse than the maps installed on building walls that you need to mentally flip to visualize how the map corresponds to the building, because you would have to do the flip while driving, which would be even more distracting than the current GPS maps. Do others know what I'm talking about? If not, I found a paper about it.
1) You try to predict the future using a model. If the predictions turn out to be accurate, you've got a model that seems to predict the future. See Arrhenius' prediction from over 100 years ago as one example.
2) The media is sensationalist, and will say shocking things to drum up sales or page hits.
3) Because it hasn't happened. In other words, that model does not seem to able to accurately predict the future.
It's called the scientific method. You make a hypothesis and see if the observations agree with the hypothesis. If they do, you have collected evidence to suport your hypothesis. This is how all science works. Again, see Arrhenius' hypothesis about greenhouse gasses and what will happen as humans burn fossil fuels. We have decades of observations as evidence to support the hypothesis.
First, I don't accept the premise that the study was flawed. But even if I did, it wouldn't mean there isn't a consensus because there is other evidence to support the claim. For example, take a look at Peter Norvig's essay: The Global Climate Change Consensus: My Experiment. This is exactly the sort of thing that climate change deniers and ID proponents do all the time. They attack evidence that others provide, but don't bother to provide evidence of their own. To support an argument you must provide evidence to support your argument, not just selectively attack arguments against it. Note that without even asking for evidence, the poster provided evidence to attack, attacked it, then made the claim that he proved what I was saying was wrong. The guy can't argue his way out of a paper bag, and yet he got modded by up people with a similar political agenda. Take a look at my sig for my reaction to this kind of thinking.
Let's accept your premise that the study is flawed. That does not mean that my claim is incorrect. If what you say is true, that only means that the study you cite does not provide evidence for my claim. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you want evidence to support your claim that there is not consensus, you would have to cite a study that shows evidence that there isn't a consensus. See the obvious flaws in the reasoning against AGW?
98% of active climate scientists agree that we observe scientific evidence to support the AGW hypothesis. That's consensus.
The evidence we have is that we see a correlation between carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and average global temperature. Of course, correlation is not causation. The causation is that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Now, you may say that the correlation is due to just a coincidence. In that case, we would expect at some point for the correlation not to hold. Let me know when that happens. Alternatively, someone could show that the rising temparatures are due to some other specific natural cause. Again, let me know when that happens.
Now the next step in the argument is that people will claim we started looking for a cause for rising temperatures after the fact. Nothing could be further from the truth. Arrhenius predicited over 100 years ago that humans burning fossil fuels would cause carbon dioxide levels to increase, which would in turn raise global temperatures. It's only just recently (in the past few decades) that the effect has become large enough to observe.
Lastly, you do not need to prove something before you can disprove it. Otherwise, how could you ever disprove things that aren't true? I think you have some strange ideas about how science works. Science can never prove anything conclusively. All science can do is gather evidence is support of or against hypotheses.
That wasn't hypothesis, according to TFS. The hypothesis was that drilling more oil in the U.S. would cause gas prices to decrease. In other words, the amount of drilling in the U.S. would be one factor of many, not the sole factor, for determining gas prices. The analysis showed no correlation between drilling in the U.S. and gas prices, so the researchers were not able to find evidence to support the hypothesis.
I see a similar mistake when people try to "disprove" global warming by showing that climate changes naturally. Just because climate changes naturally does not mean that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere artificially cannot also change climate. Natural factors (such as solar output or the orbit of the Earth) are some factors, and human-casued factors (such as more aerosols or carbon dioxide in the atmopshere) are others. Of course, there is no one factor that determines gas prices or climate.
"A new study has failed to find evidence that psychic ability is real." TFS says they failed to have a positive result, not that they proved a negative result. I think the scientists who conducted the study would also be smart enough not to claim that proved that humans don't have psychic abilities. The best that science can do is provide evidence that humans have such an ability, or fail provide evidence.
There's always incentive to innovate. Patents provide incentive to share innovations so others can benefit. If there were warring tribes, surely the wheel was kept a secret so the tribe that invented it would have an advantage.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, but they have a spare keyboard, mouse, and monitor to hook up to a Raspberry Pi? I think OLAP did it better by offering an all-in-one package that has everything needed built in. OLAP even went so far as to consider houses without electricity by building in a crank to generate power! I still don't get the point of Raspberry Pi.
Why not install Python on whatever computer is already around the house? Or Scratch? Or have them write JavaScript in the browsers they already use? I think that would be a more effective way to introduce them to computer programming.
Apple and Microsoft are one company now? What will they call it? Applesoft? Microple?
I used a PandaBoard in a robotics project recently. It's pretty powerful and full-featured, though it costs $182.
No, a patent on the process would only mean that others would not be able to use the process without getting a license from the owners of the patent. I give people who confuse copyrights, trademarks, and patents and cannot reason about them the same consideration as people who consider LSD and heroin to be similar because they're both illegal drugs. Both groups of people just give their predictable knee-jerk reactions: drugs are bad, IP protections are bad.
Aren't the rings a trademark, not a copyright? Trademarks must be defended, otherwise the owner may lose the right to exclusive use of the trademark.
If you can't come up with a resaonable estimate yourself, how can you trust the information you get from whatever website Google pulls up? I'm glad that employers are starting to see whether prospective employees can actually think for themselves. It's the same reason I'm glad the SAT has a writing section, and the GRE has a section on analytical reasoning that isn't just solving contrived puzzles.
Wouldn't it be IPoX?
So you think particle detectors are susceptible to the placebo effect?
This is a common misconception. We don't need to change our lifestyles to reduce greenhouse gas emissions signifcantly. We can simply get energy from other sources and improve energy efficiency. Individuals changing their lifestyles won't be nearly as effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions than policies that promote using less fossil fuels and less energy.
To be more precise, both are bad in large quantites. In small quantities mixed with substances that occur naturally with them, such as fiber, they are good for you. Fruits and whole grains are healthy. It's when you process the carbohydrates that they become unhealthy.
The study in this article shows evidence of causation:
It's easy to regurgitate that "correlation is not causation", but most people don't seem to quite understand what that sentence means.
People have been claiming that HFCS is one of the root causes of the obestiy epidemic. Is fructose bad for you?
Exactly. Then they see which models gave the worst predictions and throw them out. That's how models get better over time. This is precisely how science works. You understand!
As opposed to what exactly?
Not to mention that you would then need to mentally rotate the image to determine which way you are going and which way you would need to turn. It would be worse than the maps installed on building walls that you need to mentally flip to visualize how the map corresponds to the building, because you would have to do the flip while driving, which would be even more distracting than the current GPS maps. Do others know what I'm talking about? If not, I found a paper about it.
1) You try to predict the future using a model. If the predictions turn out to be accurate, you've got a model that seems to predict the future. See Arrhenius' prediction from over 100 years ago as one example. 2) The media is sensationalist, and will say shocking things to drum up sales or page hits. 3) Because it hasn't happened. In other words, that model does not seem to able to accurately predict the future. It's called the scientific method. You make a hypothesis and see if the observations agree with the hypothesis. If they do, you have collected evidence to suport your hypothesis. This is how all science works. Again, see Arrhenius' hypothesis about greenhouse gasses and what will happen as humans burn fossil fuels. We have decades of observations as evidence to support the hypothesis.
First, I don't accept the premise that the study was flawed. But even if I did, it wouldn't mean there isn't a consensus because there is other evidence to support the claim. For example, take a look at Peter Norvig's essay: The Global Climate Change Consensus: My Experiment. This is exactly the sort of thing that climate change deniers and ID proponents do all the time. They attack evidence that others provide, but don't bother to provide evidence of their own. To support an argument you must provide evidence to support your argument, not just selectively attack arguments against it. Note that without even asking for evidence, the poster provided evidence to attack, attacked it, then made the claim that he proved what I was saying was wrong. The guy can't argue his way out of a paper bag, and yet he got modded by up people with a similar political agenda. Take a look at my sig for my reaction to this kind of thinking.
Let's accept your premise that the study is flawed. That does not mean that my claim is incorrect. If what you say is true, that only means that the study you cite does not provide evidence for my claim. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you want evidence to support your claim that there is not consensus, you would have to cite a study that shows evidence that there isn't a consensus. See the obvious flaws in the reasoning against AGW?
98% of active climate scientists agree that we observe scientific evidence to support the AGW hypothesis. That's consensus.
The evidence we have is that we see a correlation between carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and average global temperature. Of course, correlation is not causation. The causation is that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Now, you may say that the correlation is due to just a coincidence. In that case, we would expect at some point for the correlation not to hold. Let me know when that happens. Alternatively, someone could show that the rising temparatures are due to some other specific natural cause. Again, let me know when that happens.
Now the next step in the argument is that people will claim we started looking for a cause for rising temperatures after the fact. Nothing could be further from the truth. Arrhenius predicited over 100 years ago that humans burning fossil fuels would cause carbon dioxide levels to increase, which would in turn raise global temperatures. It's only just recently (in the past few decades) that the effect has become large enough to observe.
Lastly, you do not need to prove something before you can disprove it. Otherwise, how could you ever disprove things that aren't true? I think you have some strange ideas about how science works. Science can never prove anything conclusively. All science can do is gather evidence is support of or against hypotheses.
That wasn't hypothesis, according to TFS. The hypothesis was that drilling more oil in the U.S. would cause gas prices to decrease. In other words, the amount of drilling in the U.S. would be one factor of many, not the sole factor, for determining gas prices. The analysis showed no correlation between drilling in the U.S. and gas prices, so the researchers were not able to find evidence to support the hypothesis.
I see a similar mistake when people try to "disprove" global warming by showing that climate changes naturally. Just because climate changes naturally does not mean that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere artificially cannot also change climate. Natural factors (such as solar output or the orbit of the Earth) are some factors, and human-casued factors (such as more aerosols or carbon dioxide in the atmopshere) are others. Of course, there is no one factor that determines gas prices or climate.
"A new study has failed to find evidence that psychic ability is real." TFS says they failed to have a positive result, not that they proved a negative result. I think the scientists who conducted the study would also be smart enough not to claim that proved that humans don't have psychic abilities. The best that science can do is provide evidence that humans have such an ability, or fail provide evidence.
There's always incentive to innovate. Patents provide incentive to share innovations so others can benefit. If there were warring tribes, surely the wheel was kept a secret so the tribe that invented it would have an advantage.
If elected I promise to KILL ALL HUMANS! Hey, you said there'd be hookers at this convention.
Photons have zero rest mass. But because photons travel at the speed of light, they do have mass.